JonathanK

I guess what I would do is turn off automatic for my ceiling joists; move my reference marker where it would need to be; build the ceiling joists; then move it back so that all the auto-framing members are being referenced in the correct location, and turn on auto-framing for everything besides the ceiling joists. Not "auto", but 90%... Otherwise, I don't see an "offset" feature that would allow you to keep auto-framing on.

We don't tackle framing in Chief a whole lot, but I'm guessing if you have a very specific location that you want your ceiling joists (i.e. right beside your rafter), I would set the first one and then place all your other members based off that one. Auto-anything in Chief is fine for some of what you do. The rest needs to be manual...but the manual way is still pretty easy to do.

I don't know... What about printing to PDF is slow as molasses? We print to PDF on all our plans we send to customers for review.

I've always done it with 3D Solids.

I guess I wouldn't say this is the "fix"...probably more of the work-around. I just edited a truss, deleted all the old ones, and offset the correct ones so they're all right. I don't know why it's doing what it's doing for you. Kind of weird. 1214266502_Trussproblem.plan

So you can actually drag the newel post over to be in front, but CA does NOT like it. It immediately just makes it a half post (regardless of your post style you select), and there is a lot of funkiness in how it builds in 3D.

You betcha. Glad to help!

Yep, I think Rob is right. Here is the door along with a screenshot of how it looks on the plan. OH Door.calibz

There is a layer called "Stairs & Ramps, Stringers". Make sure that's turned on. Then turn on "Draw Newels" and "Draw Rails" in your stair specifications DBX. It's under the "Newels/Balusters" section.

I have all my stringers and newels, etc.. turned off in plan view...so I didn't notice. Here's a snip on what they look like turned on. I guess I don't know what look you're going for, but looks ok to me.

You mean something like this?

Can you send the symbol over and we can look at it? Meaning just export that library item from your library, and attach it here.

But, if I were you, I would draw the panels individually on your symbol, so that it looks nice in elevation views. Then you can place the windows more accurately, and it would be realistic to how the doors actually are built. If you draw multiple panels on your door symbol, you still set the number of vertical panels to "1" like I mentioned above. I attached a "plan view" screenshot of my OH door plan. I just use this plan to create OH doors when I need a different size, or custom OH door.

Change the number of panels on your door to be 1.

How are beaded inset frames not already a thing in Chief?!...I think beaded inset frames have been around just as long as inset cabinetry has been around!

Are you using three doors (one hinged and two fixed)?...and are the doors all set to 0" from floor to bottom before you mull them? The only way I can duplicate the issue is by setting the sidelites off the floor. If you have a plan that has the issue, zip it up and send it over.

You can apply to be on the Beta team as well...so you get the goodies just a little bit earlier

@Chrisb222 Wasn't trying to chirp, just more in that I can make anything look good...manually, right?...but how can I make sure that another designer of ours in a different store can produce the same results with less brain power. It's a big frustration to see that there are things within the software that "appear" one way, but it doesn't actually work... That's why I reached out...to see if I'm missing something.

@Chrisb222, yes I'm aware that there is multiple ways to manually adjust the lines, both in creating a new CAD Detail from View, and editing once we get into layout. But when I pull an elevation, and there are multiple layers for doors, drawers, countertops, moldings, etc... and I adjust those layers, but it does nothing to those items in the elevation view...I feel like that's not "working as designed and intended". If it were just me banging around in Chief, I can make it look amazing in multiple ways. I'm not challenging that. But it's not just me, and I want to setup our template so that our design team, can just switch it to a different plan set, or grab a different default set, and produce the same results.

Thanks, Robert. I agree that the elevations are acceptable, and even look pretty nice. My biggest question is that why are there different layers for these objects, but when you change them it doesn't actually change anything. I don't want to have to manually draw countertops to get the countertop layer to "work correctly". Or manually draw moldings for the crown molding layer to "work correctly". Why don't those layers work correctly with the layers as provided, on the cabinets as provided. They work in plan view...why not in elevation view as well?

So in my quest to provide a nicer, cleaner, more professional looking set of plans for our customers, I've started delving into the world of cabinet elevations. We provide cabinets, and back in the day I would manually draw everything. That is obviously not scalable, so now I want to get our template setup so that we can get this done "automatically". One thing that I've been noticing, and this is where I'm looking for help from the other kitchen designers out there, is that I want to be able to set my casework a different line weight than my doors, different from my countertops, different from my walls, etc... The nice thing is, is that it looks like CA has different layers for these items. But the problem is, is that the auto-countertops derive their line properties from the base cabinets; the crown molding gets their line properties from the wall cabinets; the doors and drawers get their properties from their respective cabinets. So even though you change the layers to be what you want...it's just one big blob that looks bad. Am I missing something here, or will we honestly need to manually draw all this stuff to work correctly? I've attached a couple of snips. One is where I'm at currently, the other is a little bit of where I'd like to head.

Have you tried a complete wipe of your system, and start with a clean install of Windows and your softwares? I would say what you have is a good foundation, but you might notice a major improvement by just upgrading a few components as well (if you're tech savvy). RAM for the redundant processes, video card for the 3D views and those kinds of processing. If it turns out that you'll need to upgrade power supply and other items, just get a new machine.

You bet.

I took a stab at it with Gemini and my prompt. Looks good, the only thing is it put the siding reveal at standard, instead of 2" like your original.

It's the wall that is dividing the room. So if you break the wall at the railing and set the "nook" segment of wall as "No Room Definition", and leave the stairway segment as-is...that should do it for you.